Advice on replacement/upgrade for my kit 18-55 Ef-s kit lens

[hgraf]

If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8 dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.

Hmm, I think this is a very thought through post and obviously based on more knowledge and experience than what I can come up with. But I would still go back to argue for the 15-85, it's a completely different animal than the 18-55, at least the old one that I got with my old 400D. I tried it against my 15-85 on my 60D that I got later and it was just two completely different worlds. That said, I have not tried the kit lens you're talking about here. 15-85 is very versatile and the T4i has the same sensor as my old 60D that together produced some really nice pictures even for a fairly unskilled guy like myself.

Re: the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, I recently picked that one up to give me an extra stop in low light. It's very well built, and for a non USM lens it's pretty quick. It's image quality isn't the greatest, but I'd say it's "good enough" for many. I didn't get it for the "macro" feature, but it does focus pretty damn close. Only real complaint is the focus markings don't quite match up with the actual focus, i.e. if I set it to 10m on the ring and then shoot something at 10m it's not in focus. Also the lens isn't parfocal so I can't see how the focus ring could ever be used?

That all said, I'm happy with it for now.

Re: the Canon 18-55IS. I have to agree with you. Alot of people rave about how good it is for the money, but I think I just had a really bad copy. There was nothing to rave about with that lens. It consistently produced soft images, with quite a bit of CA. Compared to the 18-135mm IS (non STM) that I replaced it with, it was like night and day. And the non STM 18-135mm wasn't that great a lens either.

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?

 

[Random Orbits]

Re: the Canon 18-55IS. I have to agree with you. Alot of people rave about how good it is for the money, but I think I just had a really bad copy. There was nothing to rave about with that lens. It consistently produced soft images, with quite a bit of CA. Compared to the 18-135mm IS (non STM) that I replaced it with, it was like night and day. And the non STM 18-135mm wasn't that great a lens either.

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?

There are variations with lenses and bodies. Does your body have AFMA? If not, it might have been the tolerance stackup between the lens and the body.

 

[Dylan777]

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS or 24-70 f2.8 II(THE BEST in zoom)

 

[hgraf]

There are variations with lenses and bodies. Does your body have AFMA? If not, it might have been the tolerance stackup between the lens and the body.

No AFMA for me, but it wasn't a focus issue, it was a general softness (you could see the focus peak in the image, but that point was soft too), and lots of CA (enough that is was hard to get rid of in a nice way in post).

I still took thousands of pics with that lens, and with a little more post work got good results. I think I just had a particularly bad copy.

TTYL

 

[AJ]

Best lens: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

Best lens for the money: Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC

I own both of these lenses and they are both excellent.

 

[pdirestajr]

Or a 10-22 + 24-105 2 lens combo. Then have the 50 for low light.

 

[albron00]

Canon EF-S 17–55mm f/2.8 IS

 

[brad-man]

For a single lens solution, my vote goes for the EF-S 15-85 IS. The previous posters have already explained why very eloquently...


http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269486_-1

 

[HoneyBadger]

I would highly suggest asking yourself "Will I ever go full frame?" If so, then 700-1000 dollars (the price of the 15-85 and 17-55 respectively) is a lot to spend considering it won't work on a full body. All lens should be considered a long-term investment that will go from camera to camera.

 

[sdsr]

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?

Take a look at the tests done at lensrentals, where they test umpteen copies of the same lens; there's considerable variation from copy to copy across brands. In many cases it won't be obvious and may not even be noticeable, but sometimes it is. The second copy of the 70-300L I bought was clearly better than the first, while both 70-200 f/2.8 IIs I bought suffered from soft lower-right corners, albeit to different degrees (with the second one I probably wouldn't have noticed had I not looked for it, but I did... and am currently without a copy of that particular lens). Judging by the comments we see here, the 24-105 seems particularly prone to variation (I seem to have been lucky with mine). If my other lenses are not as good as they should be, it's to a degree I'm not noticing.

Bodies vary too, in all sorts of ways - for instance, my first Pentax K-5 was part of a production batch with stained sensors, my first 5DII and Olympus OM-D had dirt on their sensors, while the AF on my very first dslr, a Nikon D3100, broke after four months (am I particularly unlucky?). I understand that on some bodies the sensor isn't aligned quite properly; and so on. None of this is risk-free!

 

[aroo]

The 18-55 you have is quite good. But the 15-85 is noticeably a step up, and the difference between 15 and 18mm is tremendous. So if you want a wider angle, that might be the lens for you.

But instead of replacing your lens in the standard zoom range, you might opt to spend some time learning a bit more about software for editing colors, sharpness, using masks, and merging/stitching images together.

What you really need is a tele: 55-250

 

[Hannes]

The tamron 17-50s are good options for the money. They aren't as good as the canon alternative but they cost considerably less which means you can afford other nice lenses. If you want the best for a canon crop body the 17-55 is undoubtedly that but will cost like an L lens.

I'm very happy with a 24-105 on my crop body but then I personally find the tele end lacking much more than the wide end and 24 is wide enough for me, if it isn't I can usually stitch.

 

[rizenphoenix]

If you like to shoot wide a lot I would suggest one of these two lenses.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for an EF-s solution at about $500US new or $350US used.

-or-

Canon 17-40 L f4 for an EF solution at about $700US new or $600US used.



If you are not shooting wide(ie 17-28mm) Then I would suggest one of these two lenses.

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for an EF solution at about $500US new or $350US used.

-or-

Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS for about $800 used(never pay retail for this lens, buy it from someone splitting up a kit)


All of the above have very nice IQ. The two L lenses are two of the most affordable L's and do have much better build quality then the Tamrons.